Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Is employment a right part duex


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Is employment a right part duex Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 11:09:44 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Sure. You understand neither marginal taxes nor employer tax responsibilities.

That 35% is ONLY on the amount OVER the marginal break point. You AREN'T paying 35% of your income in taxes--only on a small portion of that income.

The employer is paying FICA taxes on your income (and medicare and unemployment insurance) and that employer paid taxes on that invested capital when it was earned (i.e., that original capital didn't just appear from nowhere).

If it got me that much work---I'm glad of it.

Now, I earn capital gains--and I worked hard for and paid taxes on that principle when I earned and saved it (starting from dead broke, in debt, in a "no-jobs" market, incidentally). If someone gets a job managing my investment, what's the problem? Or I can manage it myself--and implicitly pay myself those funds, without taxes. Would that be better for you?

Or if I hire you and pay you a pretty hefty wage (to reach that 35% bracket) to, say, work in my orchard, you're going to be upset if I have a good year and turn a profit? Hell, hit the road and I'll hire someone grateful to have a good job.





< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 5/20/2011 11:17:52 AM >

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 11:44:01 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Levittown houses go for $350,000 - $500,000 these days? What cost $7000 in 1960 would cost $50,946.50 in 2010. What cost $7000 in 1960 would cost $50,946.50 in 2010. I wish I'd bought in--dang!

The Fed started in 1913.

The average income $of 4743 in 1960 would be $34,519.89 in 2010 adjusted for inflation.

But the average income (median) is $46,000 in 2010. (I understand that can be parsed six ways of Sunday).

First I used Levittown and rather obviously as an example of the suburban phenomenon not in actual numbers but yes, I am right and yes, you are wrong.

I now live in a community very similar to Levittown, opened in 1962 and whose houses started at $8-$9,000 and yes are now selling for an average of $250,000 (up only 3000% down from $400,000 or 5000% inflation in housing)  and a remodeled home larger to be sure recently went for $585,000. They have since fallen precipitously but because of capitalism's typical excesses not because more people were to really be able to buy a home.

Maybe you are just having fun or you are understanding challenged but again the fed was formed in 1913 and what about it ? By 1920 their work of creating inflation hadn't occurred yet because nobody could borrow as much as now and the only way anyone was going to be able to 'buy' any real property so the propaganda went. People were crazy to get into the market. And for what ? To be swindled come the fall 29.

Median(s) thank the gods of math...are not averages. Dept. of Commerce 1960, median per-capita income was $5,600. So in 40 years to 2000 income was up say about 600% to $32K. Fine...houses were up until the big bust...4,000-5,000%. Gett'n richer are you ?

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 11:48:44 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Gett'n richer are you ?


I am doing quite nicely, thank you.

Building a new house, in fact.



< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 5/20/2011 11:49:28 AM >

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 11:52:02 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Dept. of Commerce 1960, median per-capita income was $5,600. So in 40 years to 2000 income was up say about 600% to $32K.

What cost $5600 in 1960 would cost $40,757.20 in 2010.

Just FYI.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 12:27:39 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Sure. You understand neither marginal taxes nor employer tax responsibilities.

That 35% is ONLY on the amount OVER the marginal break point. You AREN'T paying 35% of your income in taxes--only on a small portion of that income.

The employer is paying FICA taxes on your income (and medicare and unemployment insurance) and that employer paid taxes on that invested capital when it was earned (i.e., that original capital didn't just appear from nowhere).

If it got me that much work---I'm glad of it.

Now, I earn capital gains--and I worked hard for and paid taxes on that principle when I earned and saved it (starting from dead broke, in debt, in a "no-jobs" market, incidentally). If someone gets a job managing my investment, what's the problem? Or I can manage it myself--and implicitly pay myself those funds, without taxes. Would that be better for you?

Or if I hire you and pay you a pretty hefty wage (to reach that 35% bracket) to, say, work in my orchard, you're going to be upset if I have a good year and turn a profit? Hell, hit the road and I'll hire someone grateful to have a good job.

So you kiss your employer's ass to work hard and pay 35% while he's sleep'n in, hitt'n the golf course, visiting family...sells and pays
15%.

The rest of your post is either a clear understanding that...you do not understand at all what I am talking about or irrelevant to my argument.

The top rate for wage earners is 35%...period, the ONLY rate for 1 yr. very ridiculously called something like...capital gains whatever that means...is 15%.  Why ? What is so special about investment income that it benefits from such a lower rate ? It is because all of those making capital gains bought that tax law through our plutocracy ?  YES !!

Let's net it out here MM, stop this charade of a debate. You will be thankful that I give you a job. I believe you just might be the best I could hire. So your duties will be to hire an engineering firm, diagram and survey my land. You will take this through the application and re-zoning and all approval processes to obtain for my 'company' (me) what are called paper lots for building homes. That is zoning, engineering and subject only to a bldg. permit that say a home builder needs. It is called record plat. All addresses and road names or in, the whole thing is ready. The process often does take at least a year which is fine with me.

I will pay you $100,000 for the year because of all your hard work. To bad we didn't actually see each other or have lunch but I do greatly appreciate such hard work, gett'n up early, all of those 10-12 hour days, less time with the your kids. You see, I was a'traveling, hitt'n the golf course, ya know...sleep'n in and having a good ole time.

Then I sell those lots to a builder for millions, I pay 15% long term capital gains on my millions, you'll have to file for your refund if any because you took home oh only about $60-$65,000. Happy now ? As an investor...I love the tax code.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 12:36:53 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

The top rate for wage earners is 35%...period, the ONLY rate for 1 yr. very ridiculously called something like...capital gains whatever that means...is 15%.


Which means, incidentally, that on the first $34,000, you'll pay more taxes than I will. In fact, on much more than that, you'll pay higher taxes than I will, because I'm only paying 10% on part of it, 15% on the rest, and 25% on only the portion about $34,000---and that's before we figure in my standard deductions.

You seem upset that other people do well. If I'm getting a good income for the work I'm doing, why should I mind if your return encourages you to do the work that creates my opportunity?

Do you think we should all earn the same?

I'll then save some of that, and I'll become an investor as well. In fact, that's exactly what I did. Subsequently, I'm encouraged to save, and to put that capital to work in our economy.

What's the problem?





< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 5/20/2011 12:41:02 PM >

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 12:44:50 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

You seem upset that other people do well. If I'm getting a good income for the work I'm doing, why should I mind if your return encourages you to do the work that creates my opportunity?


I think his point is that the investor shifted his money around, did not really provide anything we can call "value added" to the equation, besides his capital... yet he does not pay his fair share of the tax burden... he actually got more of a break than the guy who added all of the value. That is an unfair tax system.

Now your view seems to be (correct me if I am wrong) that someone got out of paying taxes to the Man, and that is always a good thing, even if it is my grandkids that are going to have to make up the unfairness in the tax code because we have too much debt

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 12:47:25 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		julia, no, I don't think anyone got out of paying taxes.

I think value was indeed added--hence the capital gain, and hence the job creation.

In terms of debt, that's revenue taxed, verses none at any rate.


(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 12:53:35 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

julia, no, I don't think anyone got out of paying taxes.

I think value was indeed added--hence the capital gain, and hence the job creation.

In terms of debt, that's revenue taxed, verses none at any rate.





I am all for people investing and making money on those investments because they are taking risks. If we charged them the same sort of tax rates as we do for people who gamble I think that would be fair, after all, they are gambling, aren't they?

The point is that the wage ratio between the CEOs in this country and their entry level workers is so skewed it is immoral if you ask me, especially when the CEOs have the political clout to keep the system this way. I am not saying that some people do not deserve or merit to make more than other people, but I will say that the ratio of what the average worker contributes to this country and what the average CEO contributes is not as skewed as their salaries are. The CEO has nothing to CEO without workers, after all. Not to mention there have been corporations that got rid of their CEOs and not only survived, but prospered.

The point is they buy influence to pass the buck on to the rest of us, and they should be paying their fair share.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 12:58:44 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

The top rate for wage earners is 35%...period, the ONLY rate for 1 yr. very ridiculously called something like...capital gains whatever that means...is 15%.


Which means, incidentally, that on the first $34,000, you'll pay more taxes than I will. In fact, on much more than that, you'll pay higher taxes than I will, because I'm only paying 10% on part of it, 15% on the rest, and 25% on only the portion about $34,000---and that's before we figure in my standard deductions.

You seem upset that other people do well. If I'm getting a good income for the work I'm doing, why should I mind if your return encourages you to do the work that creates my opportunity?

Do you think we should all earn the same?

I'll then save some of that, and I'll become an investor as well. In fact, that's exactly what I did. Subsequently, I'm encouraged to save, and to put that capital to work in our economy.

What's the problem?

Whatever portion of my adjusted gross income from salary falls high enough...I pay 35%, the lower rates are so low as to render them almost meaningless. I can make $100's of millions in something called capital gains and do no actual work...and pay 15%. That is flatly immoral.

I do not have any problem with how much and how people make money and yours suggestion is a messy, deliberate obsfucation on how much people make, I do have a serious problem with two different definitions and labels of income. Why isn't ALL income...just income ? Why is your income subject to any higher rate and so-called capital gains is subject to such a lower rate ? Even some capitalists are questioning a tax code favoring paper-trading over say manufacturing or services ?

There is no explaintion for that except that as an investor, I am a typical greedy capitalist and in fact inflate my basis so as to reduce that 15% to maybe 10-12%. As in investor though, I do like your passion in defending how you could pay more than 2X my rate and be happy for yourself and me. With a 15% fed tax rate, why in the world would I hire anybody anyway ? I can buy and sell things...all by myself.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 12:59:03 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

they are gambling, aren't they?


Hardly the same. Investing in a house is like playing blackjack? No. Real assets are involved. Sure, there's risk, but hardly the same as gambling.

The CEO matter is a different issue. Studies don't support the claim that mega-bucks enhance performance. But that's just going to cloud an already clouded issue here, and there's a thread for it already, isn't there?

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 1:01:26 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I can make $100's of millions in something called capital gains and do no actual work...and pay 15%. That is flatly immoral.


Why?

As for the rest, the reasons for capital gains taxes are well-known. What's your refutation?

Some would even argue for zero capital gains taxes, pointing out it's a tax on job creation.

Don't we need jobs?



< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 5/20/2011 1:03:56 PM >

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 1:05:46 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		the CEO problem is a reflection of the overall system, and why it is flawed. There is the monied investor class, and then there is the rest of us.

We have this system of things here, and it profits some of us more than others. For example, an infrastructure project that is paid for by taxes profits the whole, but it disproportionately profits some of us more than others. Our foreign affairs are likewise directed by US economic interests, including our military interventionism, and it disproportionately profits capitalists, not workers.... yet workers should pay the larger share of the economic burden... I just think that is wrong

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 1:07:21 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

Some would even argue for zero capital gains taxes, pointing out it's a tax on job creation.

Don't we need jobs?


Can you show me statistics on how increased capital gains taxes hurt job creation?

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 1:09:23 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		I'm not promoting the point, just sharing the other side of the spectrum.

But the argument would be that lower taxes encourage investment, which does in fact create jobs (e.g., the example MR proposed).

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 1:11:12 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

a reflection of the overall system


I do agree that income stratification is a problem, even to the point of creating two economies.

But MR's tax issue isn't the cause. Dramatic changes in marginal income tax rates contributed far more.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 1:12:22 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

There is the monied investor class, and then there is the rest of us.


Not really anymore. Middle class investors are common, particularly in retirement funds, but also for excess savings.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 1:12:23 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

julia, no, I don't think anyone got out of paying taxes.

I think value was indeed added--hence the capital gain, and hence the job creation.

In terms of debt, that's revenue taxed, verses none at any rate.

I am all for people investing and making money on those investments because they are taking risks. If we charged them the same sort of tax rates as we do for people who gamble I think that would be fair, after all, they are gambling, aren't they?

The point is that the wage ratio between the CEOs in this country and their entry level workers is so skewed it is immoral if you ask me, especially when the CEOs have the political clout to keep the system this way. I am not saying that some people do not deserve or merit to make more than other people, but I will say that the ratio of what the average worker contributes to this country and what the average CEO contributes is not as skewed as their salaries are. The CEO has nothing to CEO without workers, after all. Not to mention there have been corporations that got rid of their CEOs and not only survived, but prospered.

The point is they buy influence to pass the buck on to the rest of us, and they should be paying their fair share.

More propaganda about how a preferential tax rate creates jobs....how ? No bullshit, tell me how a 15% tax rate say buying and selling stock, art, real estate...creates jobs. It does not create a single job and before you say it funds start ups...it does not. I can enjoy a long term [sic] capital gains rate...all by myself, in my recroom as I wrote.

Almost all capital gains are realized on simply buying ad selling paper on existing public companies and there wasn't any so-called start-up money from the stock market for Google, Yahoo, Msoft, Intell...etc, etc, etc. any of them...all of which were in business and making money years before they went public.

Go look up the history and the real assessments of value of going public (issuing stock) before you answer.

What you all likely do not know what you are saying is the essence of the real value in paper-trading and the whole idea of the immoral corruption of capitalism is that if I risk my LIFE say on an oil platform or coal mine where we can now have corporate manslaughter...I make real good money and pay 35%.

But oh let me risk my capital while I am threatened with flying golf balls or diseased whores, well that's much more important than YOUR life...so I pay 15%. Thank you America...thank you.


< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 5/20/2011 1:19:52 PM >

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 1:16:54 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I'm not promoting the point, just sharing the other side of the spectrum.

But the argument would be that lower taxes encourage investment, which does in fact create jobs (e.g., the example MR proposed).



I would love to see some tax credits for job creation, instead of a tax code that contributed to offshoring our jobs. If we penalized companies who did sent jobs overseas, and rewarded those who didn't, that would be much more fair.



_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: Is employment a right part duex - 5/20/2011 1:20:33 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Sounds good on paper. But in a multinational corporate world, an invitation to simply move to a more favorable country (and tax code).

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Is employment a right part duex Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109